The McLibel 2 (Helen Steel, 39 & Dave Morris, 50) will
be attending the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg
on 7th September 2004. The ECHR have declared admissible their
claim that the long running 'McLibel trial' breached their Article
6 right to a fair trial and Article 10 right to freedom of expression.

The European case, known as Steel and Morris vs UK was launched
on 20th September 2000, exactly 10 years after the McDonalds
Corporation served writs on the McLibel 2 in an attempt to prevent
the distribution of leaflets criticising the company. The McLibel
trial became the longest case in English legal history, lasting
313-days, in which the McLibel 2 represented themselves against
McDonald's. The trial and a 23-day appeal in 1999, resulted in
a 'mixed verdict' in which damning rulings were made against
McDonalds core business practices. Despite the rulings,
no sanctions were ordered against McDonald's, yet the McLibel
2 were ordered to pay the company damages [See 'Background' below].
They have refused to pay a single penny.

The McLibel 2 are asserting that English libel laws and libel
court procedures are incompatible with the convention. The main
arguments in Europe will be:

- Multinational corporations, should have no right to sue
for libel as it is in the overriding public interest that they
be subjected to unfettered scrutiny and criticism (as applies
to governmental organisations), since they have such huge power
and influence over people's lives and the environment. If there
is a right to sue, it should be a defence for a defendant to
show 'reasonable belief' in the words complained of, or that
the issues are of public importance. [Article 10]

- The McLibel case was unfair due to several factors, including
the level of proof required, and the imbalance of financial and
legal resources as between the two sides - the defendants were
denied legal aid and had to defend themselves against McDonald's
who spent an estimated £10m.[Article 6]

The McLibel Applicants and the UK Government have already
lodged hundreds of pages of written arguments on these issues.
The McLibel 2 are seeking to defend the public's right to criticise
companies whose business practices affect people's lives, health
and the environment. They also seek an end to oppressive, unfair
and archaic defamation laws and procedures in general, and in
the McLibel case in particular. If they win, the UK government
would be declared to be in breach of Convention, and could be
required to amend or scrap some of these laws and procedures.

' The end of our long legal road is at last in sight. Having
largely beaten McDonald's, we are challenging the notoriously
oppressive and unfair UK laws. Multinational corporations should
not be able to use the courts to try to suppress public debate
and criticism. '

' But whatever happens in Strasbourg, the McLibel campaign
has already proved that determined and widespread grass roots
protests and defiance can undermine those who try to silence
their critics, and also render oppressive laws unworkable. The
continually growing opposition to McDonald's and all it stands
for is a vindication of all the efforts of those around the world
who have been exposing and challenging the corporation's business
practices.' - Helen Steel and Dave Morris - the McLibel applicants."

[Please note that the Applicants will be travelling and therefore
unavailable for comment from Sunday 5th until the hearing on
7th Sept. The case number is Application 68416/01 and will be
heard during the morning].
_______________________________________________________________________________________

"McLIBEL BACKGROUND

McDonald's Corporation issued writs against the McLibel 2
on 20th September 1990 alleging they had been libelled in the
London Greenpeace factsheet "What's Wrong WithMcDonald's?
Everything they dont want you to know". The McLibel
trial began 10 years ago on 28th June 1994, and on June 19th
1997, after a trial lasting 313 days (the longest trial ever
in England), Mr Justice Bell ruled that McDonald's marketing
has "pretended to a positive nutritional benefit which their
food (high in fat & salt etc) did not match"; that McDonald's
"exploit children" with their advertising strategy;
are "culpably responsible for animal cruelty"; and
"pay low wages, helping to depress wages in the catering
trade."

On March 31st 1999 the Court of Appeal added to those damning
findings. Lord Justices Pill, May and Keane ruled that it was
fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide "do
badly in terms of pay and conditions", and true that "if
one eats enough McDonald's food, one's diet may well become high
in fat etc., with the very real risk of heart disease."
However the Courts ruled that the McLibel 2 had still libelled
McDonald's over some points and outrageously ordered them to
pay £40,000damages to the $35 billion-dollar company. The
McLibel 2 have refused to pay a penny.

McDonald's, described by commentators at the end of the McLibel
trial as being responsible for 'the worst Corporate PR disaster
in history', continues to be an ever-growing focus for controversy
and opposition around the world."

Statewatch does not have a corporate
view, nor does it seek to create one, the views expressed are
those of the author.
Statewatch is not responsible for the content of external websites
and inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement.